Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 154
Thanks Tree90Thanks

Thread: Fusion GPS must comply with subpoena

  1. #51
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    34,126
    Thanks
    31452

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Babba View Post
    First of all, Hillary may not have even known that Fusion GPS had been hired. A lawyer who worked for the DNC and the Hillary campaign hired Fusion GPS. But even if she did know, so what? Political campaigns hire people to do oppo research all the time. You people behave as though this is so unusual and nefarious or something. And Steele using contacts he developed in Russia while working for MI6 is nothing like working with the Russian government to undermine an election here.
    If there's one thing I've learned from participating in online fora, it is that attempting to bring the hopelessly delusional around to objective reality is an exercise in futility.
    Thanks from Babba and Blues63

  2. #52
    Civis americanus borealis Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    24,570
    Thanks
    15980

    From
    Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
    It is illegal to collude with foreign agents to rig an election. Steele is a foreign agent who was working with the Russians.
    No one has presented evidence of election rigging, or the alteration/cancellation of actual votes/voter access. (1)

    As Trump and his defenders have all been so fond of saying, there is no actual crime of "collusion." (2) Trump is possibly guilty of other offenses. (3)

    The main reason Trump is in trouble is because he, by his own admission (4), attempted to squelch the FBI investigation in its earliest days using his presidential power.

    So what about Steele? Well, as you said, he worked WITH "Russians." Not FOR them. He has sources in Russia, and he was conducting a political mission. But as soon as he had his full report ready --- a report that WAS NOT USED during the election --- he went to McCain, and McCain told him to go the FBI.

    The notion that he is "also dirty" as a consequence is total bunk, because we know the Trump campaign has consistently lied about their foreign contacts until it is no longer possible to lie, and have hidden from the FBI behind lawyers at every stage. It is especially problematic, as others have already pointed out, that Steele came to the Republican Senate first.

    He did that on his own, as a concerned citizen of our closest ally, and is now sought to be prosecuted by the personal friend of the Senator he talked to. It's crap.


    ――――――
    (1) It is possible the Russians conducted exploratory hacks of election systems and determined that it would be too difficult (it is 50 different state systems) or too risky, in terms of consequences, to directly attempt such a thing. That has not been substantiated, however.

    (2) There is the (strong) possibility that Trump and/or his senior campaign officials acted to receive illegitimately gathered information from the Russians, which may or may not be illegal depending on who know what about where it came from and when.

    (3) Financial crimes, which Mueller has full ability to prosecute if he discovers them in the course of airing out files obtained from the administration during the probe. There's a reason that Trump still hasn't released his tax returns, even at moments where his "magnanimous decision" to comply with longstanding tradition would've given him good coverage in moments he desperately needed it. This could be for any number of reasons, but my guess is, they signpost dirty investments. They are probably not proof of wrongdoing on their own, but a good forensic accountant would be able to shake the fruit from the trees, and Trump knows it.

    (4) In an interview with Lester Holt: "Regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire him ... And in fact when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said 'you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won." He couldn't have been more explicit and that is court-admissible evidence. This will be part of any Mueller case against Trump personally and it is so pivotal that it will probably be cited in one court filing after another that doesn't personally involve Trump.
    Thanks from Babba, NightSwimmer and Blues63

  3. #53
    Civis americanus borealis Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    24,570
    Thanks
    15980

    From
    Kansas
    Left out in my last post: The federal standard of a conspiracy is "conscious entry" and "single action to advance."

    It's possible that the Trump campaign was involved in the effort to hack the DNC under those standards.

    All they really have to have done is 1) learned that the DNC would be hacked, or had been hacked and would be hacked again and 2) agreed to conceal that information.

    If that happened, any official involved, up to and including the president, would be guilty of computer crime conspiracy.
    Thanks from Babba

  4. #54
    Veteran Member DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    32,664
    Thanks
    27632

    From
    SWUSA
    Sen. Lindsey Graham on NBC Meet The Press said he wanted another Special Prosecutor to investigate Republican's concerns with Mueller firing of Stzok and Stzok's emails and the Steel Dossier.

    To what end?

    Is conflict of interest or shopping a dossier to journalists ...crimes?

  5. #55
    Civis americanus borealis Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    24,570
    Thanks
    15980

    From
    Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by DebateDrone View Post
    Sen. Lindsey Graham on NBC Meet The Press said he wanted another Special Prosecutor to investigate Republican's concerns with Mueller firing of Stzok and Stzok's emails and the Steel Dossier.

    To what end?

    Is conflict of interest or shopping a dossier to journalists ...crimes?
    It's all crap. Graham should be prepared to say whether he has confidence in the Mueller probe or not.

    If he does not, then he should not be voting to fund it, and he should be asking the Department of Justice why they are continuing the investigation.

    If he retains confidence in them, then he knows Mueller has the ability to ferret this matter out. He fired Strzok (that's pronounced StrAWk for any curious) as soon as a problem arose with that guy and moved on to more important matters.

    Graham should not be permitted to go on TV and talk about this without being asked, do you retain confidence in Bob Mueller. If the answer is yes, then follow it up: If you do as you say, what are we even talking about here, with a new special counsel? Seems like a massive waste of time and money.
    Thanks from Babba

  6. #56
    Civis americanus borealis Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    24,570
    Thanks
    15980

    From
    Kansas
    I'm sure some of you have already seen, but Jake Tapper kicked Trump adviser/speechwriter Stephen Miller off his show this morning after he refused to answer questions about the Mueller probe and "Fire and Fury." For a solid minute before Tapper just cut off his mic and went to commercial, Miller accused Tapper of condescension before beginning to filibuster: Jake Jake Jake Jake Jake Jake!

    One of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen. Any normal administration would fire Miller immediately, for embarrassing them. Instead he'll get an attaboy.

  7. #57
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    62,635
    Thanks
    34273

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    Would you like me to quote the NPR ethics handbook again and compare it to the "resist" inspired hyperventilating "movement" that has been the vanguard of the news the past year?
    No, as this wouldn't answer the question I've posed do you. I'm not questioning your judgment about ethics.

    How about the day after the Benghazi attack when WTIC AM radio reported (every hour, on the hour) that the attack was caused by an Internet video and did so without attribution or sourcing?

    These things can put in any context you like, they are still violations of journalistic ethics.
    Fine. Beyond not listening to WTIC AM (where is this station, and how does a single AM radio station somehow represent all of the mainstream media?) what do you suggest we do?
    And there are plenty of examples of the same abuses on the right.

    Do you want political and corporate and media power bound together in common cause?

    I do not.
    Here's the thing--so long as the "abuses" you're talking about occur on both left and right, I'm not sure what there is to complain about, or what's to be done other than not paying attention to them. You seem to want some sort of government action--but that's not possible under our system (and a good thing too). Media owners have always played an outsized and self-interested role in our politics (see Hearst and Pulitzer) but the only response is for the public to identify their biases and be wary of them. How did the era of Yellow Journalism end? A new media frenzy--book length exposes of industry became much more interesting, following the concerns of the public over workplace safety and the outsized political power and wealth of men like Carnegie and Rockefeller and Mellon. It was what libertarians like to call "creative destruction" and resulted in changes in the media. Then there was the invention of a new, more democratic medium: radio. Bad as it may be in the moment, our system is self-correcting.

    What you're overlooking is that the CAUSE of the problem you're discussing is the system of media we've developed in our country. The much more dangerous element here is the proliferation a fractured and multifarious media in which every potential audience member can choose from a cornucopia of sources, each one providing him with the news dressed up exactly as he likes it. That's what's profitable, so that's what media will provide us. Until we stop patronizing such sources, they will continue to operate--unless you want to take a sledge hammer to the First Amendment.

    I'd argue our system is self correcting. First, people discover they're being lied to and change their sources of news. Second, the interests of the public change as a result of conditions, regardless of the intentions of media ownership. Third, in nearly every case you need merely wait for stories to cool a bit before you eat them--we've seen that the MSM (unlike InfoWars and the like) regularly print corrections and retractions and discipline journalists when they make mistakes.

    You really want some government agency to exercise prior restraint? Or is it just better to wait a week for the cement to harden before you believe any story?

  8. #58
    Veteran Member Eve1's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    15,612
    Thanks
    10343

    From
    My own world
    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    It's all crap. Graham should be prepared to say whether he has confidence in the Mueller probe or not.

    If he does not, then he should not be voting to fund it, and he should be asking the Department of Justice why they are continuing the investigation.

    If he retains confidence in them, then he knows Mueller has the ability to ferret this matter out. He fired Strzok (that's pronounced StrAWk for any curious) as soon as a problem arose with that guy and moved on to more important matters.

    Graham should not be permitted to go on TV and talk about this without being asked, do you retain confidence in Bob Mueller. If the answer is yes, then follow it up: If you do as you say, what are we even talking about here, with a new special counsel? Seems like a massive waste of time and money.
    It's the GOP that's complaining about the Muller investigation. Why can't they just let Mueller and the FBI do their job? If there is nothing to be afraid of then why all the personal attacks against the agents just trying to do their job?

    This is some sort of scare tactic to the rank and file of the FBI. A message from the Administration that they will try to ruin any career FBI agent for doing their job and get politicians engaged in crime. Too many politicians are too cozy with Russians and it's not only just Trump.

  9. #59
    Six
    Six is offline
    Established Member Six's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,080
    Thanks
    487

    From
    Houston, Tx
    Quote Originally Posted by DebateDrone View Post
    Sen. Lindsey Graham on NBC Meet The Press said he wanted another Special Prosecutor to investigate Republican's concerns with Mueller firing of Stzok and Stzok's emails and the Steel Dossier.

    To what end?

    Is conflict of interest or shopping a dossier to journalists ...crimes?
    Liberals are having a really hard time keeping up with this growing scandal, so allow me to clear things up for you. The allegation is that the Obama administration colluded with the DNC, Hillary's campaign, Media outlets and Fusion GPS to swing the election in Hillary's favor, and if in the event Trump won, to undermine his Presidency and agenda and hopefully remove him from office. This included the illegal surveillance and unmasking of Trumps campaign staff for political purposes. If this turns out to be true, it will make Watergate look like a parking ticket

    Is there's evidence to back this up ? Sure, there's plenty. First, CNN reported back in April that the FBI used the dossier to bolster their investigation into Russian collusion, and to obtain FISA warrants to conduct surveillance Trumps campaign staff

    FBI used dossier allegations to bolster Trump-Russia investigation
    FBI used dossier allegations to bolster Trump-Russia investigation - CNNPolitics

    In the article it states that the FBI would only do this if the allegations in the dossier were completely corroborated. Problem is Andrew McCabe testified under oath that the only allegation corroborated was Page's trip to Moscow. That was neither illegal nor was it justification to start a massive investigation into Russian collusion or to obtain FISA warrants. The dossier was always only just DNC and Hillary funded opposition research, it was never a legitimate intelligence, and for the last year or so the defense for using it to obtain FISA warrants was that it was thoroughly vetted

    Now we know that wasn't true. Last weekend the NYTs attempted to shift the focus away from the dossier, and to minimize its influence as the trigger for the investigation by creating a new narrative. A drunk George Papadopoulos's running his mount to a Australian diplomat was the trigger of the investigation, not the dossier. But thats nonsense, and people know it. So the dossiers become really toxic...for the Democrats, who aren't even trying to defend it anymore, but that doesn't change the fact that this investigation began when Christopher Steele briefed the FBI ( Peter Sztrok ) on the contents of the dossier back on July of 2016. That same month, the FBI submitted their first FISA request

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/u...adopoulos.html

    Fusion GPS would have shopped the dossier out to media outlets to give the manufactured narrative of Russian collusion, which was the justification for the covert surveillance of the political opposition for political purposes the credibility it needed. The Left is so consumed with Trump hatred, so consumed with trying to make something, anything stick to Donald Trump, that they've lost the ability to think objectively and therefore have no clue how serious this growing scandal has become
    Thanks from LuvMyPups

  10. #60
    Veteran Member Eve1's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    15,612
    Thanks
    10343

    From
    My own world
    Quote Originally Posted by Six View Post

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/u...adopoulos.html

    Fusion GPS would have shopped the dossier out to media outlets to give the manufactured narrative of Russian collusion, which was the justification for the covert surveillance of the political opposition for political purposes the credibility it needed. The Left is so consumed with Trump hatred, so consumed with trying to make something, anything stick to Donald Trump, that they've lost the ability to think objectively and therefore have no clue how serious this growing scandal has become
    News flash, the Dossier did not start the FBI investigation. It was Papadopoulos months before that started the FBI investigation after he blabbed to an Australian diplomat that Russia had damaging information about Clinton and her campaign and were going to use it to help Trump in the election. The Dossier came along later and just confirmed a lot of what they were finding out.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...alian-diplomat
    Last edited by Eve1; 7th January 2018 at 08:46 AM.

Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 16th October 2017, 01:55 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 13th August 2014, 12:56 PM
  3. The usual suspects refuse to comply with federal law
    By BoiseBo in forum Current Events
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 24th May 2014, 03:53 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 21st November 2011, 10:54 AM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 16th January 2008, 01:09 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed